WHAT is the value and the WHO effect
This Viewpoint focuses on where value is being created. As professionals and industry leaders we understand that market development through the integration of mobile, TV and web creates possibilities and complexity. Whilst it is evident that new interactive and customer engaging services can be created, without the enormous development costs of pre-Internet days; where our limited resources should be focused is still a significant concern. Balancing risk and reward is as much an executive skill today as at any time in corporate history.
With the attention of the world press, Apple has launched the iPhone, however, the iphone doesn’t create additional value for the device and telecoms market. Apple sells devices at the expense of Nokia and Motorola, AT&T acquires additional subscribers from competitors by forced churn, but these activities don’t grow the market. Apple and its global telecom partners hope that through personalization, the newly acquired customers will not churn again, therefore retaining value for themselves through the introduction of a new device (and its children); but no new incremental market value has been created.
The WHAT principle
The focus of today’s services is personalization – the making of your user experience, creating value from the reduction in churn and incremental service revenue, assuming that any incremental margin is not eroded by competitive pressures. The focus on personalization is, to my understanding, a focus on WHAT:– what you as a user want to do; what service you want; what is needed now. The sole benefactor is the individual, but does this create any value? The assumption is that personalization provides focus, and that this focus leads to the ability to deliver engaging and personalized services including advertising. This advertising being derived from the same advertising budgets, which is now redirected from other display channels. Therefore does personalization actually create any new value and will it actually grow the overall spend of the entire market?
Commentators, consultants and media sellers will provide convincing evidence to back their own propositions and the purpose of this Viewpoint is not to debate the personalization opportunity but to introduce the WHO effect. Whilst personalization will increase value for the provider; assuming that there is value for the user, it does not itself create new value for the entire converged industries. However mobile personalization could create value, if the focus is on WHO and not WHAT!
The WHO effect
Personalization has been about the WHAT principle. This has focused on a single customer: ‘you’. The WHO effect is the multiplier. The focus shifts from WHAT, to orientate on WHO you are doing something with. In simple terms when you go for dinner, who are you with? When you are in a business meeting or seminar, who are you with? When you are at a concert, in school, or on holiday – who are you with? The opportunity is that these ‘WHO’s’ are gravitating toward and enjoying the same experiences as ‘you’. The additional profiles of those who you are with, can combine to create a new and incremental market value!
Consider the advertising issue created through personalization, it reaches you – one person in two billion. The world is divided into two billion personalized worlds, only relevant to one person at any given time, and each person with an unequal bite of the advertising spend! The WHO effect would suggest that as you are enjoying something with others, even though it is outside of their personalized preference, it is possible that it would be worth providing information on products and services to the group. The WHO effect is the electronic ‘word of mouth’. It assumes and depends on the fact that we adopt at different rates and some not at all. These issues provide the limitation to personalization and the WHAT principle, but opportunity to the WHO effect.
This WHO effect is not open to the traditional broadcast, TV and entertainment companies, although they are the traditional home of the display advertising budgets. This service could be offered by Web companies, however as your profile and personalization has a dependency on your web access time, it could be difficult. The major benefactor of the WHO effect will be mobile companies as the mobile device becomes the platform to collect data, interrupt the connection and deliver the value.
The opportunity to exploit the WHO effect is not open to companies who want to ‘control’ the user experience and developer environment such as Apple, they can only enjoy the WHAT principle. Open mobile platforms, open access services and developers who services work across all devices will be able to exploit the WHO effect. The multiplier value of mobile is not in knowing WHAT you are doing (location and attention), but WHO you are doing it with; surely the outcome is WHO Google buys and not WHAT!
Development of ‘Mobile Web 2.0’ thinking and debate by Tony Fish.
Tony Fish can be reached at tony.fish@amventures.com
Bothered 2.0!
Why does “Eric Schmidt” the CEO of Google say that “mobile, mobile, mobile” is the next opportunity. My viewpoint is that the ownership of mobile originated data is the opportunity.
Within my understanding; 2.0 as a movement is about the network effect, collective intelligence, wisdom of crowds, tribes, clans, clubs and all other manner of long tail matters. Web 2.0 is the passing phase from1.0; which centred on cost reduction and brand values. Moving from 1.0 to 2.0 is the same as moving from separation, isolation and solitude to relationship, engagement and conversation. Consumerism 2.0 will be built on mobility and trust.
Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, said “mobile, mobile, mobile” as the next opportunity at the O’Reilly Web2Expo in San Francisco last month, where I was speaking on Mobile Web 2.0. I fully agrees that the mobile platform provides an opportunity that can advance faster and further than any other platform; such as the Web, TV, radio or newspaper. The mobile based form factor will be both the preferred method of IP access globally and, being always with you, will be the prime source of collecting your data or ‘Digital Footprint’, which Google would like to own and exploit!
Our mobile device is not only with us, it is increasingly part of us; it has become for many users the most personal thing. Published research suggests that we notice the loss of the mobile device faster than our wallet. The mobile device, if capable, can capture your ‘Digital Footprint’ [My first impression of this was described as ‘the slug trail’ in Being Digital by Nicholas Negroponte 1996. Digital Footprint is also known as a ‘Lifestream.’ ‘Lifestreams’ will soon be structured using APML as a common data interchange format for attention or iPALS - identity, Presence, Attention, Location and Services.] which is our daily actions and activities; when we start moving in the morning, what information was searched, requested or delivered, where we have been, where we stayed and for how long. Relationship analysis using our contact base would detail who we were with and who was nearby. Other Screens of Life [‘Screens of Life’ is a phrase explored in Mobile Web 2.0 as a mechanism to describe how we interact with media; both as a consumer of content and as a creator. The screens of life being Cinema, TV, PC, HeadRest (Airplane or Car), Mobile Device, Informational (iPod)] will be unable to repeat this data collection feat, at best a fixed access Web model may get 10% of the available data of your daily pattern, TV maybe 1%, but the mobile device opens the possibility of 90%
Assuming privacy laws and big brother objections can be overcome, this Digital Footprint of captured data or its aggregated trends has a use and a value. The use is personalisation, the exploitation of personalisation is sales and marketing, the value is based on ownership of Digital Footprints. This Digital Footprint being made up of clicks, attention, location and is the focus of our converged industries. 2.0 as a movement has a fascination with this data, in O’Reilly language ‘the next Intel inside.’ Digital Footprints are about where we have been, for low long, how often and the inter-relationships. Digital Footprints are not about individual identity, passport numbers, bank account details or social security numbers. Digital Footprint metadata comes from the Screens of Life – the digital metadata of who we are, the true value to marketing income based companies who need this data for personalisation and why the ownership of this data is the battle ground to be won and lost, the reason why I speculate that Eric Schmidt wakes up thinking about how to own an individuals mobile metadata before he looks at his email or worries about the value of Double Click or improving the search algorithm.
Bothered 2.0!
I would contend that this Digital Footprint or metadata belongs to me - its creator. However, who will I trust with my Digital Footprint if I don’t want Google, Amazon, Ebay, Vodafone, News Corp or Disney to have ownership of it. I need a trusted, open Digital Footprint store, collecting, collating and serving my metadata, through an open API across all platforms and services. I recognise the value of sharing a Digital Footprint, as it leads to service companies improving my mobile, Web or TV experience through personalisation and offsetting cost. But who should I trust and what should I trust them for; as most 2.0 corporations want my Digital Footprint metadata to justify the business model; as owners of Digital Footprints will control advertising revenue. As Google only controls the Web footprint, control of the mobile is critical, especially as mobile devices adds two whole new classes of unclaimed data platforms, availability and location.
Should I be bothered or not?
May 2007 Tony Fish AMF Ventures
- Posted by tonyfish on 16/05/2007.
- 2 comments
Identity Mashup event April 2007
Mashup* 24th April 2007
Identity 2.0: my digital identity is an asset, but who owns it?
Tom Llube - CEO of Garlik
Tom provided the opening pitch and covered a lot of ground from the perspective of the consumer. Whilst many question were asked by himself about what is identity and what do consumers believe it is… few tangible answers were given. Tom restricted his view to 3 years from today and avoided the star gazing and further limited his views to the segment he is interested in “the digital mainstream” 8.5 million of us. His 5 insights are:-
1. The language of digital identity means nothing to the average consumer, identity management provides no trigger. To mean something it must have an ‘East Enders’ Story line and should be understood by Pat Butcher!
2. Concern is high for personal information, but it is not clear what the proposition is. A shredder is great, but what is the digital equivalent for protection
3. Identity is highly emotional
4. Trust is required – but not sure for what or by whom
5. Motivation – is it unclear what the motivation would be
The take away for me is that focus is great, but lack of clarity on the proposition still cause commercial problems
Richard Baker, IDM Lead Consultant, Business Continuity, Security and
Governance Practice, BT
Richard provided the enterprise view and why identity protection is important, but started from the view that we will have an identity as a citizen, a consumer and employee. Managing these identities is a balance of convenience, cost and risk. Easy to use, low cost, very risky. Hard to use, high cost, low risk. Identity needs security, and security starts from ensuring that the person is who they say they are [verification], once approved you need authentication [proof you are still the same person], this all needs administration, control and management [cost]. However, governance is critical. Both in terms of trust but also in terms of legal duties.
Simon Wilison - OpenID consultant
Simon came from the technical viewpoint and provided an overview of OpenID and where is fits into the whole scheme, stressing that it is a small component, it will not solve all problems, e.g it is not a trust or verification system, but is useful and will be even more useful if further identity technolgies are layered on top. He raised a question about why Google and MSN want control….
Edgar Whitley - Reader in Information Systems (London School of Economics)
Edgar joined the panel, but first commented on governments wishes to provide the underlying frameworks of proven and trusted identity, and questioned which parts of my identity have value. Tom responded saying criminals say an ID is worth £800, as this is the tangible value they can steal.
Luke Razzell - Founder of the Identity Society
Luke probed "identity" from various angles. In his own words it’s a strange and slippery creature. His direction was somewhat more philosophical that the others on the panel. There is a great debate to be had about persona’s and who I am, but there is a core value is being assured that who I say I am is who I am, assuming you did not start out as a fraud.
All being said and done, identity is a wide ranging topic and cannot be solved is a few hours. The session did provide more questions than answers, but for most who attended will have expanded the types of questions. Who owns identity and especially my digital identity and what is the value is a competitive arena is very much open for more debate. Winners will win big, losers as always – lose. My final view was that whilst the iphone solves 3rd world debt and promises to bring peace and harmony to all mankind, Identity needs Pat Butcher and an Eastender headline – therefore, one identity is solved we will know who shot Phil……
Tony Fish
Other views from the event good and not so good - many thanks for taking the time ....
http://piersj.vox.com/library/post/mashup-identity-20-event-24th-april.html
http://jimmyg.org/2007/04/25/identity-20-mashup/
http://www.weaverluke.com/blog/labels/mashup.html
http://blog.grahamsadd.com/2007/04/a_good_idea_has.html
http://www.vecosys.com/2007/04/24/live-blogging-from-mashup-identity-20/
http://blogs.talis.com/nodalities/2007/04/mashup_covers_identity_20.php
why I would pay the BBC license fee in the future
To day the BBC, I believe, maintains a high hurdle bar for linear programming and content creation. This is not enough to ensure that I will continue to pay the license fee. Notwithstanding this understanding of quality hurdle, the BBC is a national asset. It is independent of commercial pressures. It is trusted. So what else can it do?
The BBC faces issues on the changes from linear programming to VOD, appointment viewing to time shifting, podcasting and user generated content, editorial pressures and new technologies; but these are just business change as normal. As the consumers adapt and technologies improve, these business as normal decisions are difficult but faced by all payers in the media, telecoms, IT and technology industries.
Given that the BBC is a trusted party, would I pay a license fee to them to become my trusted safe deposit box for my digital identity?
My digital identity and preferences are currently stored at Google, Ebay, Microsoft Live, Amazon, Yahoo, my ISP, Myspaces, etc etc. All those services that I subscribe to. However, I want my preferences, my identity and my history that allows services providers to improve service delivery, to be stored in one place. A place that cannot be commercially exploited. However should I chose, I as a user can sell my data to commercial companies, and it would be open and free for my chosen services to use to improve experiences, that that data that they will use will be all of my data, rather than the subset.
However, if the BBC supported my digital identity with an avatar - would I be happy with the BBCs ownership of that avatar - a sort of digital in loco parentis?
The type of digital identity I am suggesting is not one that the home office would issue; it is not an ID card. This digital identity that the BBC would store for me, would be based on open standard and open API’s, but which ones?
Question, is there a gray market for myspace.com ?
Last night at mashup London, the audience heard from an expert panel. The content was of a high standard and so was the debate. [link to mashup] However, there was a specific focus (maybe due to the presenters) that personal publishing is for the 14 to 24 market, this could be that this group is vein, has too much time, views it as substitution to TV or a host of other irrational and non-logical reasons.
Is there a gray market for the same technologies? The over 60’s are cash and time rich. They have many more life issues to share and chat about, and often in need of good informed independent opinions. Maybe for medical care, which medicine should not be mixed, dealing with midlife crisis siblings, wills, death, homes, care, pensions, holidays, travel and eating out.
Does anyone think that this is an interesting market, is there a market for personal publishing and how would you enable this rather technically illiterate market to become bloggers?
I am a verified Tag - not a number
Players (corporate companies who own brands and networks) want control points for good economic reasons [barriers to entry], control of numbers has been an underpinning element in communications, search resolving [directory] has been another.
Whilst I understand comments about what are tags and resolving numbers, which look the same, I accept the criticism that I did not explain my intention well. I am not sure that I will do much better this time, but I am sure you will let me know, and I will still be somewhat vague, as this is thought in progress and your point of view is probably more valid than mine.
If (if) my identity (ID) is only a collection of verified information [assumption], I need two elements to justify identify ( who I say I am) - who I am based on some historical fact(s) and that these facts are conferred somehow. My historical facts are made up from my DOB, NI, education, jobs, interests, relations, finger print, preferences etc. These facts allow me to gain Identity and acquire verified identity (conferred) such as driving license, passport, entry cards etc. These verified identities in turn allow me to buy verified services such as banking. These verified services allow me to pay-for (buy) non-verified services such as communications, who give me a number, that becomes part of my identity. But a communication number cannot be used to identify who I am, therefore the loop is open. This suggests that I can use simple and then complex proof to gain an identity to gain access to services.
Now, Avatar's, handles, numbers and indeed my name; are like tags, totally agree - they are descriptors in space and time to resolve something that I cannot remember as it is too complex [dna, ip address, family history] . However, some of these services are one dimensional and allow a user to hide, to be hidden, to falsely identify who they are and be me [fraud]. Verified Identity, my passport, driving license (in most cases) should be a true representation of who I am at some point in time. Now, how about a verified Tag. Something that allows me to be identified and verified, but not because who I say I am, but others. A closed loop system. Since, the Internet allows me to set up an ID called tonyfish, without proof. I can then take someone’s verified ID can communicate to another channel. As this is open – it can be abused.
